There is no
shame coming back a model and making it better. Mike Cougill’s recent blog
posts show us clearly the benefit of reflecting upon one’s work and bringing it
back to the workbench for improvement. If you only move forward with each project
and never address what went wrong, your skills won’t improve that much. It will
certainly take some precious time understanding how to address the situation,
but honestly, it won’t go to waste.
While my
focus with the club layout fleet isn’t the same as Mike’s desire to recreate an
almost perfect rendition of a car, I am also bothered by details that are
inconsistent. When you mix together cars from several manufacturers with
different level of details, you end up with visual discrepancies that can
really break the immersion. In this case, I’ve updated several old Athearn Blue
Box era covered hoppers with wire grabs and Tichy ladder rungs. Keeping one of
them unmodified is just to glaring to be overlooked… even if I completed the
car’s weathering a few weeks ago.
 |
| A few years ago, these coarse ladders were "good enough"... they no longer are. |
I know many
people would consider this weathered car “good enough”. I certainly have no
issue with that notion, but in my case, I see “good enough” as a moving goal
post. What I considered good enough 10 years ago is different from what I now
consider good enough. This mindset is a positive one when it helps you to move
forward and make sensible choices so a project goes forward. What was
considered a road block in the past – let’s say making custom brass handrails
or parts – may now be a part of your skills. Why stay stuck in the past,
accepting compromises no longer required?
I’ll soon
post a few blog posts about decision to buy a cheap Bachmann GP9 diesel and turn
it into a proper Central Vermont prototype. I’m perfectly well aware this model
won’t win prizes or be worth showing at a RPM event, but I also know it
provides countless modelling opportunities. What I did overlook a few years ago
when bashing the same locomotive, I can’t do anymore. My notion of good enough
moved forward. I’m no longer satisfied with incorrect louvers placement because
I know how to efficiently remove and add them. Moving a fuel filler would have
been a hurdle back then… now it’s a matter of a few minutes. Will I replace the
less than perfect Bachmann Bloomberg trucks with better sideframes made by
Athearn or another manufacturer? Maybe. Will I dare to replace the wrong phase
fuel tank with a kitbashed one? Probably? As you can see, the goal post moved… Good enough no longer means a decent
approximation in this case, but care to make sure all major components specific
to this locomotive are in the right place. This time, what is good enough for
me is starting with a lower end locomotive to make significant economies. The
compromise is made on the fact I know the Bachmann shell lacks a lot of details
but is sturdy enough and well design to perform well on a layout. Given the
price, the detail parts I already had on hands and the fact it would provide
hours of satisfaction, I thought it was good enough for me. If I ever make
another Central Vermont GP9 in the future, maybe I’ll start with another model
because my notion of good enough will evolve.
In
conclusion, good enough shouldn’t be seen as a cheap shortcut, but has a
sensible choice made to reach a goal given the circumstances. From there, you
can move forward (and should if you care about what you are doing). Also, it
should be applied with some consistency. You can’t be a rivet counter trashing
everybody because their models are subpar according to your standards while
your layout seems like what a high school student’s best effort done in a
weekend. In that regard, I have far more sympathy toward someone who’s good
enough efforts are geared toward achieving a coherent vision. If you don’t care
about consistency, at least be honest with it. It’s your hobby and you are free
to have different interests. I certainly have no problem with people enjoying
the train set aspect of this hobby when they perfectly know what they are
doing.
Excellent post Matt.
ReplyDeleteYou make an important point that good enough means different things to each of us. It's also relevant to know that the modeling scale is a factor in the choice of what's good enough.
I'm not going to have a perfect replica with my current project. However, I can make significant improvements over the coarse limitations imposed by the realities of commercial manufacturing methods. I'm focused on modeling scale cross sections and profiles in things like the corner posts and body panels. In quarter-inch scale these features command more attention than a model in HO or N scales would. In the larger scale, this is fairly easy and simple to do.
Like you, my tolerance for coarse details is evolving as my understanding of the prototype and skills increase. Once you understand how a full size car is put together and what that looks like, it's hard to accept compromised details that contribute nothing to the model.
Mike
Interesting input Mike. Indeed the choice of scale will also define how good enough a model is. The sheer size of 1:48 makes a lot of acceptable compromises at other scales simply not tolerable in my eyes. In 1:87, many tasks push tools and materials to their physical limit. Metal parts may warp, plastic ones snap... Physics also applied differently than the real cars. And even if you can achieve that level of "accuracy", it is not guaranteed it will survive intense use (and abuse).
DeleteOn the other hand, with larger scale, many of these limitations are alleviated substantially. Quite surprising many 1:48 manufacturers still produce cars which are basically inflated HO scale models.
Another point, and I think you modelling work is a good example, is that depending the scale, projects are different. Instead of a hundred cars, you will require only a few... meaning hobby time and resources can be diverted toward higher accuracy without becoming a road block.
This is interesting, because we tend to select scale in terms of layout space, but we too often forgot it has also to deal with what we want to achieve. If accuracy is required and you desire to push models to the limit of your skills, indeed a larger scale would make a lot of sense for many obvious reasons. Otherwise, it would lead to the wrong side of "good enough": an excuse for a poor choice.